Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds one behavioral fact: only active campuses are returned, implying inactive ones are filtered out. It does not cover ordering, pagination, or what happens for an invalid university_id.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the purpose clause placed last. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple single-param read. The only gap is that the description does not say where university_id comes from, which for a low-coverage schema would be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for the single required university_id, so the description must compensate. It does convey that the parameter selects a university (implying the ID originates from search_universities), but adds no detail on ID format or validation beyond the schema's integer/minimum=1 constraint.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (campuses) with a clear scope qualifier ('active', 'for a selected university'). It is distinguishable from siblings like search_universities, though it does not explicitly contrast with any of them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The trailing clause 'so the user can refine the room search' implies the workflow position (after picking a university, before searching rooms), but no alternatives are named and no when-not-to-use condition is given. Usage must be inferred from the purpose clause.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.